OT: engines
 

I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
wondering...

Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
> that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
> wondering...

Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
checked if you are not trolling.
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
> etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
> supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
> know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
> down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
that had to be removed....

Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
superchargers, etc.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
> that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
> wondering...

Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
checked if you are not trolling.
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
> etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
> supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
> know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
> down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
that had to be removed....

Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
superchargers, etc.

Re: OT: engines
 

Troy proclaimed:

> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small engines
> that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it got me
> wondering...

Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
checked if you are not trolling.
>
> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but turbocharged,
> etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small engine with a
> supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a stock engine? I
> know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced the cost would go
> down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.

You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
that had to be removed....

Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
superchargers, etc.

Re: OT: engines
 

> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.

Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.

Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.

Looking at jeeps like: M-422 Mighty Mite... AMC v4 w95 cubic inches,
producing 50 hp... tho I know its only like 1500 pounds or so... Model Ts,
stuff like that. I'm not old I'm young, I only know what I read ;)

I remember seeing some sort of 4 wheel drive truck model t looking thing
made out of wood... can't remember where tho. A friend of my dad's had a
bantam with a 17 horsepower motor that could cruise around 65 he said, and I
even saw the thing loaded into the back of a van.

I still dont know what trolling is... I just learned today what ramj+w is
lol. My expertise is computers not cars, twas why I was asking... looking
for input from Mike or Jerry or Bill. They've been around longer than I,
and from what I can read on here have seen alot.

Troy

Re: OT: engines
 

Good one, Lon. Modern vehciles are marvels of complexity, but deliver more
power, safety and overall economy than any that have preceded them. Hybrid
tech is currently the rpovince of society hating moonbats, but will most
likely become quite mainstream and soon, as it'
s such a simple tack-on it's a wonder it wasn't assimilated years ago. The
biggest yuk in all this, the green-moonbats hatred of SUVs and trucks is
only going to get more intense, as hybrid tech will make them more efficient
and eventually less expensive to operate. They are the best vehicles in
which to adapt the hybrid powertrain, plenty of capacity for big battery
packs, and lots of need for efficiency, plus low-end torque.

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8CdneJDUNieJ9TeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>
> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
>> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
>> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
>> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
> might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
> electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
> further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
> 2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
> could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
> New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
> that had to be removed....
>
> Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
> and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
> some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
> technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
> era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
> superchargers, etc.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

Good one, Lon. Modern vehciles are marvels of complexity, but deliver more
power, safety and overall economy than any that have preceded them. Hybrid
tech is currently the rpovince of society hating moonbats, but will most
likely become quite mainstream and soon, as it'
s such a simple tack-on it's a wonder it wasn't assimilated years ago. The
biggest yuk in all this, the green-moonbats hatred of SUVs and trucks is
only going to get more intense, as hybrid tech will make them more efficient
and eventually less expensive to operate. They are the best vehicles in
which to adapt the hybrid powertrain, plenty of capacity for big battery
packs, and lots of need for efficiency, plus low-end torque.

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8CdneJDUNieJ9TeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>
> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
>> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
>> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
>> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
> might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
> electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
> further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
> 2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
> could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
> New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
> that had to be removed....
>
> Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
> and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
> some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
> technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
> era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
> superchargers, etc.
>
>

Re: OT: engines
 

Good one, Lon. Modern vehciles are marvels of complexity, but deliver more
power, safety and overall economy than any that have preceded them. Hybrid
tech is currently the rpovince of society hating moonbats, but will most
likely become quite mainstream and soon, as it'
s such a simple tack-on it's a wonder it wasn't assimilated years ago. The
biggest yuk in all this, the green-moonbats hatred of SUVs and trucks is
only going to get more intense, as hybrid tech will make them more efficient
and eventually less expensive to operate. They are the best vehicles in
which to adapt the hybrid powertrain, plenty of capacity for big battery
packs, and lots of need for efficiency, plus low-end torque.

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:f8CdneJDUNieJ9TeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Troy proclaimed:
>
>> I was looking at old cars recently, and I noticed how they had small
>> engines that put out 50-100 horsepower, weighed alot less, etc. and it
>> got me wondering...
>
> Wonder where you were looking. Most old cars had larger engines with
> less horsepower than a similar displacement today. The vehicles
> themselves were far heavier due to the typical body on frame. Easily
> checked if you are not trolling.
>>
>> Couldn't the auto makers today just have smaller engines, but
>> turbocharged, etc? Nothing high horsepower or extravagant, just a small
>> engine with a supercharger or turbo and puts out roughly the same as a
>> stock engine? I know turbos are expensive... but surely if mass produced
>> the cost would go down? I dunno if it's been tried before or not.
>
> You could also answer that question with 5 seconds of Googling. You
> might even discover that your great grandma might have driven an
> electric car or your great grandpa a steam one. Or go back a bit
> further and discover that your great great grandpa probably drove a
> 2-3 horsepower fully organic vehicle. With a bit more research, you
> could even compare the pollution of modern traffic in downtown
> New York City to that of say, 1889 as far as sheer tons of material
> that had to be removed....
>
> Modern engines make way more horsepower from smaller displacements
> and weight than ever before. Some use turbos, some use superchargers,
> some use common-rail or direct injection diesel, some are hybrids with
> technology dating back to the large diesel locomotives of the railroad
> era, and soon you'll be seeing ceramic engines, electric
> superchargers, etc.
>
>